9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 1090X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction 27 of the Punjab VAT Act, 2005. The CBEC has issued a Circular No. B1/16/2007-TRU dated 22.05.2007 and clarified Contracts treated as works contract for purposes of levy of VAT/Sales Tax shall be treated as works contract for purpose of levy of Service Tax. This is clear from the definition under Section 65(105)(zzzza) - The said Circular issued by the Board is binding on the Revenue Authorities as held by the Hon ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of AMBUJA CEMENTS LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA [ 2009 (2) TMI 50 - PUNJAB HARYANA HIGH COURT] . Time Limitation - HELD THAT:- The substantial demand is barred by limitation because the department has not been able to establish that the appellant had intended to evade ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the appellant is engaged in providing services in relation to building and civil structure or a part thereof, falling under category of Commercial or Industrial Construction Services . During the course of audit of the records of M/s Ganga Acrowools Ltd, it was observed that during the period 22.06.2006 to 31.08.2010, the appellant had received Rs. 3,08,64,546/- for providing commercial or industrial construction services to them. It appeared that the appellant was required to pay service tax of Rs. 37,53,353/- w.e.f. 22.06.2006 which was not paid by the appellant. Accordingly, a show cause notice dated 01.01.2010 was issued to the appellant demanding service tax alongwith interest and penalty. The appellant filed a detailed rep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as providing composite service which involved supply of material alongwith service. He also submits that the appellant has also obtained a Certificate from the Party that work undertaken by Appellant was inclusive of material and goods required for completion, and as such the Party had not paid anything for supply of material separately. Ld. Counsel further submitted that the service recipient ledger of the appellant shows that the recipient had deducted VAT TDS @ 4% on payments made to Appellant, which is deducted only in cases where the contract is a Works Contract' (inclusive of material), as per the Punjab VAT Act. Ld. Counsel further submits that the appellant was wrongly made to pay Service Tax under the head Commercial ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that the composite contracts for construction involving supply of goods and services executed prior to 1.06.2007 not leviable to Service Tax under Commercial or Industrial Construction Services'. Ld. Counsel also submitted that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of Section 80 and no penalty should be imposed on him because he is unaware of liability of service tax and as soon as he came to know, he paid the tax alongwith interest before issuance of the show cause notice and therefore, should have been allowed the benefit of Section 80. Ld. Counsel also submits that the present demand of service tax is for the period 2006-2010 whereas the show cause notice is issued on 01.10.2010 and therefore, the time period prior to 01. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant and this 4% Works Contract Tax TDS is only deducted if the payment is made for a Works Contract in terms of Section 27 of the Punjab VAT Act, 2005. 9. Further, we find that the CBEC has issued a Circular No. B1/16/2007-TRU dated 22.05.2007 and clarified as under:- Para 9.10- Contracts treated as works contract for purposes of levy of VAT/Sales Tax shall be treated as works contract for purpose of levy of Service Tax. This is clear from the definition under Section 65(105)(zzzza). The said Circular issued by the Board is binding on the Revenue Authorities as held by the Hon ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of Ambuja Cements Ltd. vs. Union of India, 2009 (14) STR 3 (P H). 10. Further, we find that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
